On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 06:05 -0500, P. J. McDermott wrote:
> Paul Wise mentioned[8] on the fonts team list in 2021 a couple programs
> ("embed"[9], a derivative "ttembed"[10], and "ttfpatch"[11]) that unset
> the DRM/TPM bits, enabling full use of the
On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 20:16 -0500, P. J. McDermott wrote:
> [Resending to the list, as it apparently didn't go through earlier.]
It did go through.
> Ping? Any thoughts on whether a font DRM modification tool would be
> legal to distribute and use in Debian given that the DRM is a simple bit
>
On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 22:31 -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Imagine I take some code from a freely licensed reference implementation and
> customize it. The result is a derived work. But this embedding isn't
> removable - the reference implementation shouldn't accept changes to integrate
> it in
On Mon, 2024-01-01 at 13:16 -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Suppose project A includes code from project B.
The best option would be to talk to upstream about removing the copy,
further advice about embedded copies is on the wiki:
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies
> How should these files
On Sun, 2023-10-08 at 15:04 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Given this, why is that copyright notice there, and what does it imply
> that we should do? (E.g. does Apple Numbers automatically copy
> Apple-owned items (e.g. fonts) into files it creates? If so, is there a
> way to remove these
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 10:41 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> So was this problem previously known but under-acknowledged, or was it simply
> not brought up before now? I find it surprising that Debian would allow so
> many license violations to get this far. Is fixing the tooling to handl
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 11:03 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> On further inspection, it turns out that bat itself compiles the text
> of its NOTICE file into the binary, and the text is displayed when
> running `batcat --acknowledgements`, so bat's Apache 2.0 license is
> being followed. If
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 05:24 +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> Are the upstream developers not already legally required to include all
> this information into various places including their “Help-About” menu?
It is definitely not common practice to document the copyright/license
info of dependenc
On Tue, 2023-09-26 at 14:20 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> - bat (In addition to the type of problem discussed above, the source code for
> bat has an Apache 2.0 `NOTICE` file, yet this is not included in the .deb
> package.)
Please file a severity serious bug report against bat abou
On Tue, 2023-09-26 at 14:20 -0400, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> I suspect that this problem applies to all programs written in Go or Rust that
> Debian distributes. Is Debian handling dependency licenses for these packages
> incorrectly, or is there something I'm missing?
Your analysis is co
On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 13:56 +, Marius Gripsgard wrote:
> Could someone review this?
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1045145
On the question of missing source code, looking at the Debian source
package, all the CSS and JavaScript (except that embedded in the HTML)
is minif
On Fri, 2023-08-25 at 11:35 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> ## Acceptance
> By using the software, you agree to all of the terms and conditions
> below.
This is icky, not sure about DFSG compliance.
> ## Copyright License
> The licensor grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free,
On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 13:56 +, Marius Gripsgard wrote:
> Could someone review this?
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1045145
Here is a copy of the license for the list archives:
# Netdata Cloud UI License v1.0 (NCUL1)
## Acceptance
By using the software, you agree to all
On Thu, 2023-06-01 at 15:54 +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> I was working on packaging sepaxml [1] when I ran into an issue
> where I'd appreciate some legal guidance. The source contains .xsd
> SEPA files [2] distributed by the iso committee [3] under what I
> believe to be DFSG-compliant licens
On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 10:42 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Although the material on this site is intended to be used and reproduced
> freely
> by all interested users under the ISO 20022 Intellectual Property Right
> Policy,
Here is a copy of that policy:
https://www.
On Thu, 2023-06-01 at 15:54 +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> I was working on packaging sepaxml [1] when I ran into an issue
> where I'd appreciate some legal guidance. The source contains .xsd
> SEPA files [2] distributed by the iso committee [3] under what I
> believe to be DFSG-compliant licens
On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 14:13 +0300, undef wrote:
> Also I found this soundfont in the existing Debian package minuet-data by path
> /usr/share/minuet/soundfonts/GeneralUser-v1.47.sf2. [1]
I suggest you bring this to the attention of minuet-data upstream and
also file a bug about it in Debian if yo
On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 23:47 +0300, undef wrote:
> ** License of the complete work **
> You may use GeneralUser GS without restriction for your own music
> creation, private or commercial. This SoundFont bank is provided to the
> community free of charge. Please feel free to use it in your soft
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 15:59 +0900, 野崎耕平 wrote:
> In researching the licenses of the dependent libraries of the programs I
> created,
> I noticed that some packages could be non-GPL library become GPL library by
> patch.
Generally Debian encourages maintainers to license their packaging
under th
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 12:15 +0800, Zhikang Pan wrote:
> This is zhikang Pan, our company wants to use Debian on our robot
> product, which will be sold. So do we need open source for the
> kernel, Robot Operating System framework, and applications on this
> robot product? We actually don't want op
On Thu, 2022-08-04 at 19:09 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
What would have changed
On Thu, 2022-08-04 at 19:15 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important
> packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine.
I wouldn't put any weight on the presence of the APSL 2.0 license text
in the archive, probably it got into Debian in those packages du
On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 23:00 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> I was wondering if the Apple Public Source License (version 2.0)
> complies with the DFSG. The Free Software Foundation considers it to be
> a free software license (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html),
> but I just wanted to make s
https://github.com/BrunoLevy/geogram wrote:
> If you modify this software, you should include a notice giving the
> name of the person performing the modification, the date of modification,
> and the reason for such modification.
The word "should" seems to imply this might be optional, sinc
On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 18:08 +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
> * This copyright and license shall be included in all copies or
> substantial portions of the Software.
>
> and the last line worries me a little: is it a DFSG-ok license?
> I prefer asking around since I'm not really confortable with it.
On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 08:32 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Major factors in making that decision include what data is actually
> available to the upstream author as well as how upstream has generally
> chosen to make modifications.
> If data is available to upstream but not to Debian that's a good si
On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 14:52 +0100, David Given wrote:
> The usual recommendations are to pick a standard OSI compliant
> license and not customise it. Using a standard license makes life
> easier for users because they don't have to think about the
> implications --- everyone already knows what BS
On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 16:08 -0600, Navtej Bhatti wrote:
> If I want Debian to boot with the stock firmware, I need a specific
> partition layout that is completely foreign to UEFI systems. I don't
> think this would integrate well in Linux distributions.
I note that the depthcharge-tools author a
Navtej Bhatti wrote:
> I have a project to get Linux (specifically Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> and Arch) working on chromebooks.
This sounds like something that should be done within those
distributions themselves, rather than outside them in a separate
project. General distros want to be able to s
On Sun, 2021-10-17 at 13:08 +0300, Nicholas Guriev wrote:
> I still have suspicions about RNNoise and its probable non-free model.
I'm the pabs3 in the HN thread you referenced. I think that RNNoise
does not meet my personal standards for Free Software and also for
machine learning. I think that
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:48 PM Francesco Poli wrote:
> What do other debian-legal participants think?
While they are fairly obviously worded in plain English like an
optional request, since they are part of a legal document, they are
supposed to use legal language, and IANAL, so I don't know how
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:51 AM Protesilaos Stavrou wrote:
> As for the Front- and Back- Cover texts, my understanding is that Debian
> does not consider those free because the project cannot patch them
> either, correct?
Correct, the cover texts aren't accepted in Debian main.
--
bye,
pabs
ht
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:15 AM wrote:
> there have been a series of changes impacting Audacity.
This sounds like something that should be reported as a bug against
the Debian package requesting to switch to the fork.
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:09 AM Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> Actually, while the upstream tarball (from PyPI) does not include the
> unicode.xml file, upon closer inspection upstream does include it in
> their GitHub releases. If using the release for packaging is technically
> viable (looks like
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:18 PM Alexander Mazuruk wrote:
> I'm writing this as I've noticed that some packages have copyright file
> filled with records for source code, while the package contains binaries.
Essentially all packages in Debian do this, with a couple of
exceptions where the maintain
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:12 AM Carlos Henrique Lima Melara wrote:
> He (Alec) is the creator and main contributor to devtodo, occasionally he
> had help from other as noted in the AUTHORS files, though no copyright
> statements were added by these occasional contributors. For this license
> chang
On Mon, 2020-11-16 at 15:52 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> Hunspell to Pascal Bindings, the saga continues
>
> OK, I have now separated out the Hunspell 'bindings' from my hunspell
> unit.
Excellent, I think that concludes the legal proportion of the saga :)
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debia
On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 09:25 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> Are there any further thoughts on this topic ?
It sounds like FreePascal wiki user Graham created parts of the
spelling.pas file, is presumably the copyright holder (unless their
employer owns it), released it without specifying a license,
On Sun, 2020-11-01 at 18:17 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> It is possible to build C style Libraries with FeePascal units but it
> not efficient with time, space or performance in practice.
Thanks for the info.
> also wanting to use KControls but there is not.
The KControls README and issues sho
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 7:24 AM David Bannon wrote:
> OK folks, reminding Paul, Daniel, Tobias and Philipp of the discussion
> that took place over the last couple of months about getting tomboy-ng
> into the Debian repos. The issue at that stage was that, of necessity,
> the source package conta
On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 09:10 +1000, David Bannon wrote:
> However, I don't believe it will help. I think TK is concerned about
> conventional licenses allowing someone to remove his name from the
> package, ship it as its own. Near as I can tell, thats permitted if some
> changes are made. Happened
On Sat, 2020-09-12 at 15:44 +1000, David Bannon wrote:
> Yes, I understand that. However, LCL Packages usually have no existence
> outside the Lazarus IDE.
IIRC the Lazarus IDE has a way to do command-line builds, this came up
in the TomboyReborn RFS #964087.
Is TomboyReborn the same thing as to
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 1:21 AM David Bannon wrote:
> Unusually, I will be adding code from another repository into the Debian
> Source package.
Dependencies should be packaged separately, not copied into the
package that depends on them.
> This code is distributed as a freeware. You are free t
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> conserver package is in non-free because of this issue but it appears a
> lot of people did not notice the lack of modification permission.
...
> https://www.conserver.com/pipermail/users/2019-July/msg1.html
Due to the interpretation
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that they have
dealt with this problem too and concluded that these licenses were
intended to cover modification. The current wording of the
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 4:34 PM Eriberto Mota wrote:
> For me it is not DFSG-compatible because I can't see a clause about
> allowing modifications in source code.
I brought this up on debian-legal a while ago:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/a8259f8fb4348c790076ffcaf8721ecba7c714a3.ca...@
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 07:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It also has to be optional and disabled by default because a future
> dbx update may be specifically designed to stop Debian systems from
> booting. No Debian user will want to install such an update.
Isn't the point of these updates to
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mario Limonciello wrote:
> there are concerns if this would fit within the DFSG
>
> https://uefi.org/revocationlistfile
Since it does not include modification permission and several
restrictions on redistribution, this license is unlikely to meet the
DFSG requiremen
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mario Limonciello wrote:
> https://uefi.org/revocationlistfile
For the benefit of the mailing list archive, here is a copy of that
page in plain text form:
UEFI Revocation List File
ACCESS TO THE UEFI REVOCATION LIST FILE
This file is used to update the Secure Bo
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 17:08 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
> I'm really sorry, but I can not answer to everyone and all your
> questions. I feel a bit flooded.
Sorry about that, I hope one final email is not too much.
> About the website and the DFSG compliance, please consider that the
> website tra
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 17:34 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
> We know that at least two forks exists (this is what our private data
> server's log tells us). We do not receive any patch, invitation to
> git repos, or any kind of official informations or queries.
Having multiple forks and having folks n
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 13:01 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
> Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or
> may be "non-debian" ?
The section of Debian a package is added to depends solely on the DFSG
compliance of the software (freely licensed and released source code).
Wheth
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:02 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> I don't like this, people seeking source code should not have to get
> approval first. That said, I note that the source code is available
> directly from the site without approval.
I missed seeing that the git repository contain
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 8:00 PM Eric Maeker wrote:
> Free Source code is provided to any demander approved by the NPO, code
> licence is still the same.
I don't like this, people seeking source code should not have to get
approval first. That said, I note that the source code is available
directl
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:40 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> (please CC me on replies)
Done.
> |4. Every use of
I'm not sure copyright restricts mere use of software so this clause
might be unenforceable?
> |should acknowledge the following publication:
It sounds like license drafters should not us
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:45 AM Craig Small wrote:
> I'm the Debian Developer for net-snmp. This package includes MIB files that
> translate human-readable SNMP parameters into numbers computers can
> understand. Sort of like a DNS hosts file for SNMP.
These sound like things that should not be
Hi all,
There are several packages (including GCC and Linux) in Debian that
contain files released under several different BSDish licenses that are
missing the explicit modification permission. Many of these files
contain comments indicating that they likely have been modified. I
think that these
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 5:41 AM Francesco Poli wrote:
> Then, the strategy could be similar to [flashplugin-nonfree]:
> a package (in Debian contrib) that automatically downloads and install
> the non-free module from the upstream distributor, and installs it...
IIRC the Debian maintainers of Fire
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:38 AM Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> I wonder why no one brought it up yet, but here we go: IMHO, downloading
> pre-defined proprietary software should completely be disabled/removed in
> Firefox and the proprietary Widevine module be properly packaged as a package
> in non-fr
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM Moshe Piekarski wrote:
> The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers
> the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider
> it such?
Unfortunately dedicating code to the public domain is not feasible
world-wide so a
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:15 PM Wade Pinkston wrote:
> My company manufactures high-end IR sensors, IR Quadrant detectors, IR PSDs,
> and associated electronics.
...
> Is there a way to release a free software package for Debian, but maintain IP
> rights to it?
>From the perspective of your end
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:36 PM David Lamparter wrote:
> Huh. This is slightly surprising to me, I thought binaries always need
> a license attached too. But now that I think about it, indeed I don't
> even know how I would get a license "label" for a random binary .deb...
> (as you say, the shi
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:17 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:36 AM Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > Contractual law would apply to entities downloading the TAL from the
> > ARIN web site, but I cannot see how they could apply to a Debian
> > maintainer who re
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:36 AM Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Contractual law would apply to entities downloading the TAL from the
> ARIN web site, but I cannot see how they could apply to a Debian
> maintainer who received anonymously the TAL by email...
IANAL, so I wonder how one could be subject to a
ain in
full force and effect, and continue to be binding, and will be
interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties insofar
as possible.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:36 AM Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> (Please Cc me on replies.)
&g
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:00 PM Marco d'Itri wrote:
> And they are arguing that people cannot download this file from
> a well-known location without first agreeing to some conditions.
Do you have any info on the conditions?
> Does everybody agree that this is bullshit and that we can distribute
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:45 AM Paul Jakma wrote:
> There is an issue with the GPL style copyleft of abuse by corporates. In
> particular, abusing the ability to discharge source distribution
> privately, and then using various forms of side-contracts to
> (indirectly) "discourage" recipients from
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 2:53 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On December 7, 2018 6:34:39 PM UTC, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> >It was a long ongoing process.
> >The news is that it seems to have finally come to an end...
This appears to be the commit where it happened:
https://github.com/open
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to
> proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I
> found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that
> back then. This surprises me. Has
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:04 PM Paul Wise wrote:
> I noticed MongoDB are pushing a new license that tries to be like the
> AGPL but more expansive in what software it covers and more expansive
> in what activities trigger the clauses within it.
These changes seem to be designed to
Hi all,
I noticed MongoDB are pushing a new license that tries to be like the
AGPL but more expansive in what software it covers and more expansive
in what activities trigger the clauses within it.
They have posted to the OSI license review mailing list:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/lic
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> Looking at the files of the software, Example of that is that some
> files like .sh ones are GPL-2+ and some .svg are CC-BY-SA-4.0+.
>
> I'm assuming this can be solved by:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: YEARS NAME
> License: GPL-2+
>
> Files: *
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:58 AM, Rob Browning wrote:
> # However, this document itself may not be modified in any way
This part is fairly clearly non-free.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Alexis Murzeau wrote:
> I have a question regarding the font-awesome v5 [0] and the DFSG.
>
> Since version 5, font-awesome upstream repository contains both source
> files and generated files but not the build system [1].
I would like to point out here that the b
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Diane Trout wrote:
> Several logos are linked to in the Dask documentation, and
> I was wondering how I should resolve them.
Are they present in the source package or are you concerned about
privacy violations from browsers downloading remote images when
loading th
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I know there were issues linking with openssl, but i dont know if it's
> still accurate, so i would like to ask the list: is it ok from a legal pov
> to switch from gnutls to openssl for transmission?
The situation is currently unchanged, the O
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> I am preparing a package for Siconos: http://siconos.gforge.inria.fr/
>
> This software contains several 3rd-party sources used for numerical
> solutions etc.
In general, Debian and other distributions do not like it when
projects embed c
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> The source file would be pic16f1320.inc, which is part of gputils (which
> is packaged in Debian, the .inc file gets installed to
> /usr/share/gputils/header/pic16f1320.inc).
Hmm, I'm not sure these files should be in Debian main, a l
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Problem: Hardware vendors want to impose non-free terms on the header
> files (via a copyright claim on the files that the headers were
> generated from).
I think we need more details. Are the files the headers were generated
from pub
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Milan Kupcevic wrote:
> It is widely held in the IT industry, and in technical industries in
> general, that interface descriptions and definitions can not be legally
> protected as that would stop development and production of compatible
> replacement parts by thi
On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 17:22 +0900, Ikeda Yuichi wrote:
> Thank you for reply, it has helped me to discuss with experts.
If you reach a conclusion, please let us know the results.
> I have shared this announcements to some engineers
> who has related work about Linux and embedded systems.
Excell
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Ikeda Yuichi wrote:
> I like excellent package system of Debian operating system.
> I have been using for a long time. Thank you.
You might like to have your company listed as a commercial user of
Debian on our website.
https://www.debian.org/users/
> Therefore,
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> I am working with a team that is working on a low-cost laptop that
> would be GNU/Linux based. When it comes to choice of distribution that
> would be preinstalled on the laptop, Debian is among them.
When that happens, please ensure you get
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can't you find a copy of the configure.ac somewhere ? If not, you may
> be able to reconstruct one. Skimreading the configure script suggests
> that wouldn't be too hard.
It looks like the jpeg-6b-steg is a modified embedded code copy of
lib
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:24 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> i was playing with the idea about packaging the Decklink SDK by
> Blackmagic (this is an SDK to access digital video grabbing cards).
It might be better to invest in more Free Software friendly cards that
are supported by
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:53 PM, David Seaward wrote:
> I suggested DFSG flagging, and SPDX are interested in a machine-
> readable status list. [2] Is there such a thing?
There is not such a thing.
> I was also reminded of the comment below, and wondered in retrospect if
> a flagging licenses a
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Yanhao Mo wrote:
> but what I really want to know is that is there such a list that display
> all debian packages with their licenses, just like the following link
> about rhel[1].
There is no single list of licenses for each Debian package,
just the individual co
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:33 AM, ardavan izadi wrote:
> I’m not sure about Debian licensing and don’t understand very well as it’s
> long and confusing to me.
A fairly good introduction to Free Software licensing is available here:
https://www.debian.org/intro/free
The FAQ Walter Landry sent a
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Do you think it's ok to internally provide backwards compatibility?
> eg, for a library, newname provides/fulfils oldname, for a long period
> of time...perhaps a year. I'm trying to think of all the non-Debian
> users who would also be
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
> proprietary piece of software.
I think it would be best to pro-actively rename the software now
rather than wait until renaming the software would be more painful.
Even i
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Philippe THIERRY wrote:
> The main tool is based on the following license file (LICENSE.txt) :
This is almost identical to the 3-clause BSD license, the only change
is s/university|regents/copyright holder/
> You may not redistribute aPLib without all of the fil
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Personally I would like to see the amount of proprietary nVidia stuff
> in Debian reduced, not increased. I would suggest focussing your
> efforts on OpenCL/Vulkan based and open source deep learning libraries
> instead of propr
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:42 PM, lumin wrote:
> Hi Debian Legal Team,
debian-legal are not Debian's legal advisors, just a bunch of people
subscribed to a mailing list.
> I intend to package[1] a proprietary deep learning
> library named "cuDNN"[2], which is definitely useful
> to deep learning
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:29 PM, kevin anthoney wrote:
> Would we need to provide source code for all the GPL software running on the
> PC? Assuming the answer is "yes", is there a sensible method of collating
> all the necessary source code?
Yes, you would. I would encourage you to ship source
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> what to think of these patents grants?
https://www.debian.org/legal/patent
https://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Eric Kuzmenko wrote:
> Curt, who is an Associate Director of the Office of Technology Licensing for
> University of California, Berkeley, has stated that UCB is willing to
> relicense CIDER1b1 (1994) under the modified BSD license.
Excellent.
> Curt has also sta
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
>> > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have
>> > been
>> >
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have been
> //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the
> //original author(s).
This is impossible to comply with for those who do no
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> And a password database can be protected as a database in the EU.
Some recent interesting articles on this topic:
http://lu.is/blog/2016/09/12/copyleft-and-data-database-law-as-poor-platform/
http://lu.is/blog/2016/09/14/copyleft-and-data-d
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Eriberto Mota wrote:
> It is also a list about what don't to use for security.
For security, don't use passwords unless you are forced to.
If you must use passwords, use Diceware or similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceware
https://packages.debian.org/unsta
1 - 100 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
